Guild Wars 2

Charrbeque.8729:

I don’t like the idea of weapon skills being locked and all of them automatically unlocking as you level up.

I liked it the way it was before, being able to unlock them myself. When I was a new player to this game I saw it as an incentive to unlock all weapon skills for my profession as soon as possible. While working to unlock weapon skills it made me stick with a weapon for a while causing me to familiarize myself with it. By the time I had all weapon skills unlocked for all weapons I was able to decide which type of weapon is best for my playstyle.

Now with weapon skills automatically unlocking for each weapon as you level up, there is no incentive for a new player to ever try out a different weapon. Some players may just use whatever type of weapon their character starts with and stick with it for a very long time before they decide to ever try out anything else.

Actually there was no incentive for player to trynew weapon and goes back to 11111111111111111 so he would stick with what he already had unlocked.

And that is especially true for people that already wanted to play “big sword warrior” “longbow ranger” “mace+shield gardian” “staff ekemenalist” as they would unlock that and had o desire to go back to 111111111111 with other weapons.

Roybe.5896:

The traits are a different issue, dealing with opportunity costs. By changing the way the players obtain their traits, hunting for all of them, the opportunity costs are tipping towards cash purchase rather than in game play. This is a major departure from one of the base goals of this game, i.e. no one should have to do unnecessary grind to access content.

With all due respect, I think you’re engaging in a psychologist’s fallacy here (if mental state X would lead to action Y, then any observation of action Y proves the actor is in mental state X even if there are other mental states that would also lead to action Y).

The trait system could just as easily been seen as an attempt to implement player demands that ended up not working out well. Namely, since launch there was a big block of players expressing nostalgia for the “skill capture” system in GW1. The new trait system essentially is that system.

I also note it’s kind of weird to describe being expected to play the game as an opportunity cost in terms of game design.

MikaHR.1978:

Charrbeque.8729:

I don’t like the idea of weapon skills being locked and all of them automatically unlocking as you level up.

I liked it the way it was before, being able to unlock them myself. When I was a new player to this game I saw it as an incentive to unlock all weapon skills for my profession as soon as possible. While working to unlock weapon skills it made me stick with a weapon for a while causing me to familiarize myself with it. By the time I had all weapon skills unlocked for all weapons I was able to decide which type of weapon is best for my playstyle.

Now with weapon skills automatically unlocking for each weapon as you level up, there is no incentive for a new player to ever try out a different weapon. Some players may just use whatever type of weapon their character starts with and stick with it for a very long time before they decide to ever try out anything else.

Actually there was no incentive for player to trynew weapon and goes back to 11111111111111111 so he would stick with what he already had unlocked.

And that is especially true for people that already wanted to play “big sword warrior” “longbow ranger” “mace+shield gardian” “staff ekemenalist” as they would unlock that and had o desire to go back to 111111111111 with other weapons.

Any player that just wants to pick whatever weapon is popular for their profession and just spam 1 all day doesn’t belong playing GW, in my opinion.

GW has always been a complex game that requires a good build, tactics, strategy, and the skill to use it. If they make the game easy because it’s too hard for noobs it ruins it for the rest of us.

I admit I’m not nearly as skilled as other players and sometimes the game is a bit too complex, but I never give up and keep trying. I use to have a lot of trouble with easy jumping puzzles that most players could do on their first try. Now after much practice I can do a lot of those jumping puzzles, and more, with little to no difficulty at all.

If everything was too easy for me when I first started playing I would have gotten bored and moved on to something else. It’s the will to overcome a challenge that makes the game interesting, as frustrating as it can be at times.

Stormy Dragon.9210:

Roybe.5896:

The traits are a different issue, dealing with opportunity costs. By changing the way the players obtain their traits, hunting for all of them, the opportunity costs are tipping towards cash purchase rather than in game play. This is a major departure from one of the base goals of this game, i.e. no one should have to do unnecessary grind to access content.

With all due respect, I think you’re engaging in a psychologist’s fallacy here (if mental state X would lead to action Y, then any observation of action Y proves the actor is in mental state X even if there are other mental states that would also lead to action Y).

The trait system could just as easily been seen as an attempt to implement player demands that ended up not working out well. Namely, since launch there was a big block of players expressing nostalgia for the “skill capture” system in GW1. The new trait system essentially is that system.

I also note it’s kind of weird to describe being expected to play the game as an opportunity cost in terms of game design.

I sort of agree, and always have since seeing the Trait Mastery system revamps. It does feel like a shot and a grazing hit rather than hitting the target.

But then, I am one of the unwashed masses who never finished college and works a wage-slave position.

Charrbeque.8729:

MikaHR.1978:

Charrbeque.8729:

I don’t like the idea of weapon skills being locked and all of them automatically unlocking as you level up.

I liked it the way it was before, being able to unlock them myself. When I was a new player to this game I saw it as an incentive to unlock all weapon skills for my profession as soon as possible. While working to unlock weapon skills it made me stick with a weapon for a while causing me to familiarize myself with it. By the time I had all weapon skills unlocked for all weapons I was able to decide which type of weapon is best for my playstyle.

Now with weapon skills automatically unlocking for each weapon as you level up, there is no incentive for a new player to ever try out a different weapon. Some players may just use whatever type of weapon their character starts with and stick with it for a very long time before they decide to ever try out anything else.

Actually there was no incentive for player to trynew weapon and goes back to 11111111111111111 so he would stick with what he already had unlocked.

And that is especially true for people that already wanted to play “big sword warrior” “longbow ranger” “mace+shield gardian” “staff ekemenalist” as they would unlock that and had o desire to go back to 111111111111 with other weapons.

Any player that just wants to pick whatever weapon is popular for their profession and just spam 1 all day doesn’t belong playing GW, in my opinion.

GW has always been a complex game that requires a good build, tactics, strategy, and the skill to use it. If they make the game easy because it’s too hard for noobs it ruins it for the rest of us.

I admit I’m not nearly as skilled as other players and sometimes the game is a bit too complex, but I never give up and keep trying. I use to have a lot of trouble with easy jumping puzzles that most players could do on their first try. Now after much practice I can do a lot of those jumping puzzles, and more, with little to no difficulty at all.

If everything was too easy for me when I first started playing I would have gotten bored and moved on to something else. It’s the will to overcome a challenge that makes the game interesting, as frustrating as it can be at times.

Except that you’re only using 1 through the five minute tutorial, during which you’re getting the lay of the land and then the two skill unlocks immediately after.

I think the idea is that you know very well then what your 1 skill does making 2 infinitely more appealing to use. You start looking forward to new skills because you don’t get them that fast.

The funny bit, to me anyway, is that people have been complaining for a year or more now about people standing around at boss fights pressing 1, long before the NPE was designed most likely.

But no one can offer evidence that this won’t get people to press 1 less. In my opinion very few people will be satisfied with a single skill and the idea that a new skill is unlocked will be a reward to them. They’ll use it because it’s not one. They have time to read it, enough time, before the third skill unlocks.

Everyone plays differently. I’ve always used all my skills. But the amount of people who use 1 all the time prior to this patch is legion.

Stormy Dragon.9210:

Roybe.5896:

The traits are a different issue, dealing with opportunity costs. By changing the way the players obtain their traits, hunting for all of them, the opportunity costs are tipping towards cash purchase rather than in game play. This is a major departure from one of the base goals of this game, i.e. no one should have to do unnecessary grind to access content.

With all due respect, I think you’re engaging in a psychologist’s fallacy here (if mental state X would lead to action Y, then any observation of action Y proves the actor is in mental state X even if there are other mental states that would also lead to action Y).

The trait system could just as easily been seen as an attempt to implement player demands that ended up not working out well. Namely, since launch there was a big block of players expressing nostalgia for the “skill capture” system in GW1. The new trait system essentially is that system.

I also note it’s kind of weird to describe being expected to play the game as an opportunity cost in terms of game design.

First I’m not really trying to prove anything. I am discussing how things appear to more than just myself, as this discussion was started by someone else’s observation, who by the way, works in the industry, listening to people explaining monetization schemes. I also have hope that these ideas are just failed implementation of good suggestions. Time will tell.

Honestly, everything in life can be measured in opportunity costs. How you make any decision is based on whether one option is better than another. Whether you play a game 8 hours or go to work 8 hours, one is more fun, while the other is a fixed dollar amount. By going to work you are deciding that the pay you receive is worth as much, or more than your game time.

When you play a game that has a cash shop offering things that saves you time, you make a decision to spend the money because your time is more valuable than the cost of playing, or you play the game and get your reward in game because you value the recreation provided more than you do the money being asked for. Case in point, I’ve already seen people suggesting instant level 80 books for leveling alts. They are literally saying, it is not worth my time to level a character, I’d rather spend money to do this and play at level. Even if it is in game gold, they are still making the economic choice to play their level 80 rather than play through the content again.

As to your opening argument of logical fallacy. Yes it can be a fallacy, that perception does not equal intent. Unfortunately, in this situation, all we can do is try to logically ascertain what might be happening. My basis for my logic is that Arenanet is a properly functioning business, able to produce a product that is profitable and is functioning rationally by making changes in its product to increase it’s profitability.

Your assumption is that the company is not functioning properly and is failing at producing a functional product. Personally, I hope that this is the case. This means that changes can occur to repair the situation. As a business person, I am doubtful.

Ultimately, regardless of who is right or wrong, nothing really changes. If your observations are correct, then Arenanet fixes the issues we move on. If it isn’t and those in this discussion are correct, in the end, nothing still changes. We’ll have a few more items in the store, things will be more convenient and the vast majority of players will still be happy. Ultimately, knowing the reasons for what and why things happen, only allows for a person to make a decision on their support of the system.

I’m sorry if this stuff sounds like ‘conspiracy theories’ but decisions like this are made every day in every game in the world that has a pay store that is supposed to be the long term profit generator for that game. Heck, decisions like this are made every day at your local Walmart and corner convenience store. Hopefully, people understand this and argue for the things that will keep the games store on an even keel. When asking about features you want, also think ahead as to how it would help retention and how it could be monetized well within the current system, and fight hard to prevent poor monetization choices. Those are the keys to discussions, those are the real things to fight for to keep the game healthy.

Roybe.5896:

Honestly, everything in life can be measured in opportunity costs. How you make any decision is based on whether one option is better than another. Whether you play a game 8 hours or go to work 8 hours, one is more fun, while the other is a fixed dollar amount. By going to work you are deciding that the pay you receive is worth as much, or more than your game time.

Technically, you’re right. However . . . these decisions are often not simply based on opportunity costs any more than game design decisions are based simply on monetization concerns.

You go to work rather than play games not because you decided it’s worth more of your time . . . but because you need the pay to afford your rent, or your bills. You choose to bend over and pick up the penny because you find it interesting, or you don’t because it’s incredibly inefficient use of your time, monetarily speaking . . .

What seems like simple decisions are often complex when you look at them and break down the influences which go into the decision.

I’m sorry if this stuff sounds like ‘conspiracy theories’ but decisions like this are made every day in every game in the world that has a pay store that is supposed to be the long term profit generator for that game. Heck, decisions like this are made every day at your local Walmart and corner convenience store. Hopefully, people understand this and argue for the things that will keep the games store on an even keel. When asking about features you want, also think ahead as to how it would help retention and how it could be monetized well within the current system, and fight hard to prevent poor monetization choices. Those are the keys to discussions, those are the real things to fight for to keep the game healthy.

Decisions like this are, indeed, very important to the people high up in companies who want to make money rather than lose it. I won’t deny it, because I have actually seen such analyses laid out in simplified terms before me. However, there is often a point where a company needs to make a decision not because it will net them the most profit, but because it is the right thing to do, or it suits the vision of the leaders more than chasing sheer profit.

And I can cite one example, though it’s incredibly off topic, of a company which is rather large in one chosen market and made a decision which seemed rooted in morality rather than profit. Should I?

I’d like to humbly suggest that the Golem Chess game from Metrica Province either be restored or moved to Rata Sum. I was so impressed with the level of detail in Tyria right from the beginning on seeing those.

Actually adding them to Rata Sum is a great idea even if they are restored to Metrica Province.

And I’d totally buy one for my personal instance in the gem store. Just sayin’.

DragonWhimsy.6489:

I’d like to humbly suggest that the Golem Chess game from Metrica Province either be restored or moved to Rata Sum. I was so impressed with the level of detail in Tyria right from the beginning on seeing those.

Actually adding them to Rata Sum is a great idea even if they are restored to Metrica Province.

And I’d totally buy one for my personal instance in the gem store. Just sayin’.

I’d say this is indeed something which is worth adding back somewhere in the game. Also, I’d say it’s worthwhile to add Polymock once again.

DragonWhimsy.6489:

I’d like to humbly suggest that the Golem Chess game from Metrica Province either be restored or moved to Rata Sum. I was so impressed with the level of detail in Tyria right from the beginning on seeing those.

Actually adding them to Rata Sum is a great idea even if they are restored to Metrica Province.

And I’d totally buy one for my personal instance in the gem store. Just sayin’.

They could add it to one of the areas that you portal too from Rata Sum. Even if it is just one or two of them.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

DragonWhimsy.6489:

I’d like to humbly suggest that the Golem Chess game from Metrica Province either be restored or moved to Rata Sum. I was so impressed with the level of detail in Tyria right from the beginning on seeing those.

Actually adding them to Rata Sum is a great idea even if they are restored to Metrica Province.

And I’d totally buy one for my personal instance in the gem store. Just sayin’.

I’d say this is indeed something which is worth adding back somewhere in the game. Also, I’d say it’s worthwhile to add Polymock once again.

I am sooooooo down for polymock. But I don’t want to derail the thread.

I thought this thread was constructive when I read it. I’ll post it here so it doesn’t get buried and can be seen by those looking for feedback.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Regarding-Level-Gating

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

I am up to date with the conversation. We are discussing your thoughts internally and continuing to work on the story steps. Once I have some more new I will update the thread.

Meanwhile I just want to communicate with certainty that NPE was not implemented in order to increase monetization from the BLT. It was designed for brand new players to the game. And it is for that reason that we are working with you to understand how to better refine the system.

Chris

It kind of feels like you guys are just throwing darts at a board to see where to take the game next. On one hand you keep stating how you won’t discuss work in progress, or even thoughts about the direction to take certain things. And on the other hand you keep releasing patches and then immediately having to backtrack/change/justify/scrap/etc half of what you did because no one likes it.

Either stop making bad design decisions, or be more willing to communicate with the playerbase about them before they go live. Alternatively, if you really think your designs are great and it’s just bad luck that the game population kind of sucks, at least be clear about it so that people don’t around for several months hoping that your claims of “listening to feedback” and “making some changes” pan out the way they hope, and instead can just go play other games. At least then you won’t have to constantly defend and/or justify your designs and changes.

Few points about level gating. Honestly I am fine with it, except when it comes to weapon skills for the most part. For professions like Elementalist with so many more skills than others I can see unlocking them by level to actually be easier. For everyone else though it seems like artificially slowing down progression.

As for the restructuring of personal story the concept of chapters is great but if it comes at a cost of loosing content from a story that already required playing through at least two paths to get the full picture of it, without outside help, then you are doing something wrong. I get the idea behind having one chapter focus on one narrative thread but as far as I am concerned the price for it is too great without any extra effort.

As far as removal of bundles from early areas and other more complicated interactions they always had alternatives to them so while I understand where the designers are coming from with this on some level since a player is not required to engage with this more complicated interaction in the first place it does not hold as much value in my eyes.

If you want to improve the concept of bundles in early levels make them more intuitive don’t remove them (ie. the cow feed in Queensdale never did look like something you would instinctively think of to feed to a cow, so instead of removing it address the actual problem). Forgoing common sense and logic to achieve simplicity is not something I can honestly get behind (see revitalizing plants by standing next to them versus using a water bucket to water them).

Is bringing level-gating to a pre-9/9 state a possibility?

Maybe even start a CDI and see where we can get on easing in new players and teaching them the game mechanics.

The dodge tutorial is a good example on doing that correctly, and level-gating (in my opinion, and, judging by the post-9/9 backlash, that of many others) is an example of doing it incorrectly. Let the players choose how far down the rabbit hole they want to go. Use well-thought tutorials and teaching integrated with the beginning areas to show newbies the ropes, but allow for the quick learners and those with previous knowledge or experience to continue unhindered and feed the cows or challenge the skritt.

On a side note, a look at traits would be nice at the same time. Traits are fun! Being able to delve into traits at a lower level may be something to keep newer players interested?

amimeta.4960:

…

It would be nice to know if a one-time tutorial, which deals with all the aspects of the gameplay (like dodging, downstate, healing skills, utility skills, elite skills, weaponswap, etc.), would have the same effect for you, rather than the current implementation.
While I agree that the level-up rewards shift the focus to the leveling, I’m still highly concerned about the changes.

HHR LostProphet.4801:

amimeta.4960:

…

It would be nice to know if a one-time tutorial, which deals with all the aspects of the gameplay (like dodging, downstate, healing skills, utility skills, elite skills, weaponswap, etc.), would have the same effect for you, rather than the current implementation.
While I agree that the level-up rewards shift the focus to the leveling, I’m still highly concerned about the changes.

The problem with tutorials is that many players skip them…because they’re tutorials. Playing the game will make more of an impression than a tutorial to many people. People are anxious to get through the tutorial to get to the game.

It may well work better for some people but I’m not convinced it would work better for the bulk of the population. And I know from experience, sometimes, some people who need tutorials the most are most likely to skip them.

@Vayne
That is problem for that players. If you skip tutorial in a game you dont know how to play this is only your fault. The devs give you tools, and if you dont want to use them then be ready for consequesnces.

Also there is not a single reason to NOT make a tutorial and a tutorial section of the game should be THE best part of the game.

Gating things is not the answer. Teaching how to use tools you gain is a way. Giving more solution for the problems is the way. Not striping us from the tools.

Chris

skill 1 with and without stealth on thief with the Ricochet trait has 2 tooltips and may be interfering with the range. it stays 900 regardless while the other skills DO get an increase. not to mention the tooltip while hovering over the skill actually clutters the screen’s entire left side for me Q__Q

Aliven.4056:

@Vayne
That is problem for that players. If you skip tutorial in a game you dont know how to play this is only your fault. The devs give you tools, and if you dont want to use them then be ready for consequesnces.

Also there is not a single reason to NOT make a tutorial and a tutorial section of the game should be THE best part of the game.

Gating things is not the answer. Teaching how to use tools you gain is a way. Giving more solution for the problems is the way. Not striping us from the tools.

Actually it’s a problem for the devs. If a player skips the tutorial and leaves the game, it doesn’t help the game. Sure it’s his fault, but it’s Anet’s problem. That’s the problem in a nutshell. More people need to stay after starting.

Vayne.8563:

Aliven.4056:

@Vayne
That is problem for that players. If you skip tutorial in a game you dont know how to play this is only your fault. The devs give you tools, and if you dont want to use them then be ready for consequesnces.

Also there is not a single reason to NOT make a tutorial and a tutorial section of the game should be THE best part of the game.

Gating things is not the answer. Teaching how to use tools you gain is a way. Giving more solution for the problems is the way. Not striping us from the tools.

Actually it’s a problem for the devs. If a player skips the tutorial and leaves the game, it doesn’t help the game. Sure it’s his fault, but it’s Anet’s problem. That’s the problem in a nutshell. More people need to stay after starting.

In that case anet should try adding more things early on to get the players engaged, rather than pushing things back. What sort of things? Maybe some sort of ongoing personal story, one without a lot of aggravating level gaps, with interesting, recurring characters doing interesting things all involving the player’s character personally.

One fundamental problem with this that I have is that according to Anet they surveyed people that stopped playing the game and based their changes on the leveling system based on their answers. But did they survey the players that are actually still playing the game? Don’t our opinions count for something?

If I made a movie, showed it to 500 people, and 20 of them walked out angry, I wouldn’t change the movie to suit them, because 480 people seemed to enjoy it. It’s not a perfect comparison but you get the point.

Why didn’t they do a CDI on the leveling experience?
Why isn’t there an in-game survey system that periodically asks me questions about in-game features? Wouldn’t that be super helpful if you’re interested in what your player-base thinks? (which, admittedly, Anet definitely seems to).

These forums are full of amazing ideas, but it’s no secret that we’re only a small part of the GW2 population. An in-game survey system would reach 100% of your current player-base and would provide an amazingly accurate idea of what your players want. And I know that personally I wouldn’t mind answering a few questions here and there in order to make the game better. There would also be a great opportunity to link directly to the CDI’s on these forums from inside the game. Collaboration is a great thing, but I feel like 80% of the player-base is upset with the new changes and that is not good.

Chris,

Here are my notes / suggestions. Note that while I am an experienced player I have introduced many friends to Guild Wars 2 in recent weeks and I was very concerned with their experiences as new players.

One of my favorite aspects of Guild Wars 2 was the world itself, and how Arena Net was innovating quests (“hearts”) by giving them all kinds of new and unique tasks besides find X things or kill X enemies. I am talking about stuff like the farm outside Queensdale, the Sylvan Hounds in Caledon, etc. The fact that I could walk up to a pail of water, pick it up, see my skill bar change, and actually use that pail of water to water plants. Or pick up food and feed the cows. Transform into a hound and run around doing hound things. In addition to being very unique, these were FUN. And seriously, they’re not hard for a new player to understand. They’re really, really not. Worst case scenario, there’s an NPC standing right there – just have him give a more thorough tutorial on how the heart works. I was appalled when I heard one of my friends say he walked up to a cow and pressed F, then walked up to a plant and pressed F instead of the unique and interesting interactions that were there before.

Second, I am concerned with the way that some features have been ‘gated’ behind levels. While I completely understand that players learn systems better when they are introduced slowly over time, I think that the NPE is a huge over-correction in the wrong direction, in this regard. There are two negative factors at work here. One is that if you progress too slowly, players get bored or feel like the game is treating them like a dummy. Many new players in Guild Wars 2 are going to be proficient in the core systems of RPGs or adventure games. They are being completely alienated by the NPE, which is shutting out major game systems – some for a short period of time, and some for much longer periods of time. The other negative factor is that many of these changes conflict with the original design and direction of GW2, and then when they are re-integrated at higher levels, it’s actually far more confusing and complex than it could have been. One of my friends who I introduced GW2 to was extremely confused that falling to 0 hp in the tutorial instance killed her, while falling to 0 hp later on triggered the downed state. She had no idea that was even a feature of the game, and it threw her off completely. Little bait-and-switch moments like these create a lot of confusion. She thought, “Did I die because I was in a story instance?” and then thought, “Or maybe I just got hit so hard that I died?”

In any event, I think the biggest issue here – and the reason why most experienced players are upset at these changes – is the strange disconnect between the developers and the players. Ever since launch, GW2 has had issues players would have loved to see changed. Some were, some weren’t. Don’t get me wrong, GW2 is a fantastic game and my favorite MMO of all time, but any player or critical review will tell you what things are wrong with the game and need fixing. In NONE of these reviews or forum posts have I ever seen anybody complaining that early levels (1-20) are confusing or complex, or that new players tried the game and felt it was too complicated for them. In fact, in contrast to other MMOs, GW2 is extremely simple and easy to understand. You have far less skills taking up your screen, the UI is clean and simple, enemies have clear attack indicators, and tooltips are all over the place. I feel that the NPE is a huge mis-step for the above reasons, and that it is actually hindering the experience for both new and experienced players, rather than aiding in players’ understanding of GW2’s relatively simple systems and mechanics. I am not adverse to the concept of a new player experience, but levels 1-30 at launch were much easier to understand as a new player, and more importantly, far more fun.

Thank you for reading and I hope the design team takes these points into account.

My level 8 ranger, wielding longbow and GS with all weapon skills unlocked, completed a heart, switching between both weapons.
At level 10, I went to LA to buy more weapons but on removing the GS, suddenly the weapon slot became locked, and I had the message that weapon swapping wouldn’t unlock until a higher level.
Underwater hearts are painful with only 2 abilities – if we’re not meant to be playing underwater because it’s too confusing, remove the underwater requirements from the low level zones

Tryxtr.6295:

Why isn’t there an in-game survey system that periodically asks me questions about in-game features? Wouldn’t that be super helpful if you’re interested in what your player-base thinks? (which, admittedly, Anet definitely seems to).

Someone in another thread earlier this week actually mentioned something like this as well. Back during the Beta of GW2 (I participated), there was a little questionairre that would pop up sporadically and ask you to quickly rate content you just played. It wasn’t really that intrusive, and though it breaks immersion a little, it would be a great way to get the opinion of the actual players in the game as to what they thought about content. I don’t see why it would be a problem to re-implement it.

I mean, it literally took 30 seconds to fill out, if that, and I got maybe one or two during every six hour play session. That’s really not that often at all, and even trimming it down so it only pops up once a day would still give a ton of feedback for ANet to use.

I’ve made a couple characters now, and run them up through the end of the first personal story arc. (1 each of human, norn, and charr so far.) The more I see of the changes to the starting zones, the more I absolutely HATE them.

The starting zones have lost a lot of the convenience that they used to have for starting players (and adjusting level gating for vets won’t change that), and they’ve lost a lot of the FEEL that they used to have. Earning the right to buy potions that turn you into a white wolf? Gone. Buying the recipe to make wooden swords that look like a cheap kid’s toy? Gone. Lucky rabbits’ feet (in multiple colors) that don’t actually do anything? Gone (and that was a nice joke, too). The people with the watermelon patch actually SELLING watermelon? Gone. Apparently, the idea of “eating food is good for you” is considered a bit too advanced for people just starting the game.

I have a friend that played GW2 at one point, but became a serious market flipper and burned himself out quickly because of it. When I told him of the changes made to the GW2 starting levels and zones, his response was, and I quote:

Ren: Sounds like they’re going the “lowest common denominator” route, like WoW did.

Anyone remember that Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin brings in a single snowflake for show and tell? THAT is what this reminds me of.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

I mean, it literally took 30 seconds to fill out, if that, and I got maybe one or two during every six hour play session. That’s really not that often at all, and even trimming it down so it only pops up once a day would still give a ton of feedback for ANet to use.

They could also make an option (defaulting to “On”, please) for if you even see them or not. That way, people that don’t like them can turn them off and not have to deal with them.

Query: is there anything about the NPE changes that might serve to make GW2 more console-friendly? I’ve not played any console games since the Sega Genesis, so I don’t know what they’re like now. But the thread ‘Guild Wars on PC and Console’ got me wondering…

Tachenon.5270:

Query: is there anything about the NPE changes that might serve to make GW2 more console-friendly? I’ve not played any console games since the Sega Genesis, so I don’t know what they’re like now. But the thread ‘Guild Wars on PC and Console’ got me wondering…

Not really, no.

In the end, it’s the controls that are one of the big hang-ups between a console version and a PC version. A delayed need for all the buttons doesn’t change the fact that you still need them all in the end.

Plus, the idea of ANet trying to deal with all the hoops they’d have to jump through to push out LS updates for a console version is laughable, at best. I think we’d be looking at the end of the LS, which they won’t do.

Gaile Gray.6029:

The devs have been reviewing your feedback on the New Player Experience. While some bug fixes have already been made, the team will be making other updates in the future to address:

• Plot holes and story inconsistencies that may have been introduced with story realignment

Please revert this horrible change. The story was fine as it is and there was no need for it. I stopped playing my story because of this.

If this change was done because of some players complaining (which I hope it is not and this is just a bug or something…) this will be ridiculous and it show how you have no respect for your own work. You don’t go back and change what it is already in the lore just because of some complaint.

The NPE changes don’t affect me much personally, but I’m not at all convinced they’re good for the game. Nobody benefits from being coddled too much, and being too easy only serves to make the game feel trite and boring.

I don’t really mind the PS changes. I like that it’s being reconfigured to work better conceptually along with the LW. The chapter organization was a good way to do it.

Also, unlocking weapon skills was cooler before, though I can see the benefit of the change that was made ONLY if there’s something we don’t know about in the works – like the ability to acquire different weapon skills and customize those slots on a given weapon. I would support the change if that was the end goal.

The slot gating is a little weird. Considering you only have 10 slots to work with, it just makes you wait too long to open them up. Have you considered expanding the skill bar to 12, giving you 5 utilities + heal + elite? That would allow you to space them out a little better.

Alternatively, have you guys ever considered just doing a level compression? I feel like having 80 levels is really just too many for this game and was something of a design mistake. Maybe you should compress down to 40 and retool the progression. This would allow you to have progression similar to what exists now but with more palatable spacing.

MVP.7961:

Gaile Gray.6029:

The devs have been reviewing your feedback on the New Player Experience. While some bug fixes have already been made, the team will be making other updates in the future to address:

• Plot holes and story inconsistencies that may have been introduced with story realignment

Please revert this horrible change. The story was fine as it is and there was no need for it. I stopped playing my story because of this.

If this change was done because of some players complaining (which I hope it is not and this is just a bug or something…) this will be ridiculous and it show how you have no respect for your own work. You don’t go back and change what it is already in the lore just because of some complaint.

This comment is HUGE double-edged sword after all the changes they’ve reverted from last week.

You say they have no respect for their work, which is why they changed the story missions. You say they shouldn’t listen to others just because they don’t like the story.

However, what does that say about them taking player input about all the changes they made with the NPE? A lot of players didn’t like the changes, and they even reverted some of them (like the levels that utility skills unlocked at). Should they stick to their guns, have respect for their work, and put the Elite unlock back up to level 40?

Listen, there’s a very delicate line to walk here, and you can’t go around plying that kind of mentality. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don’t. But either way, they should be listening to the player base. I don’t like the story changes either, but if they were never changed to begin with, we’d still have the majority voice being “the story sucks, god I hate it!” I’d rather see a dozen threads about wanting it fixed than a dozen threads about how kittenty the storyline is.

anzenketh.3759:

I have decided based upon my impression of this thread and recent comments from Chris that changes are closer to their actual design. I do not know everything in relation to the NPE as I have veteran goggles on. However I am in a unique position to have a wife that recently picked up the game.

Due to this I will revise my feedback I posted in in the following thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Learning-Curve/first#post4389552

Revamped Hints

These are extremely useful. However I am unsure about their effectiveness. Your testing should have proved if it is true or not.

Gating of Weapon skills

I understand why this was done to reward the player. I think that gated systems are not vary rewarding they always feel restrictive. Nor do I find it educational. I do not feel that it teaches me the profession. I was leveling up a sentimentalist from level 1 in the new system I understand the mechanics of fire well. The reason behind this was that I was required to go a entire level focusing on that single skill.

However for the remaining elements of the elements I don’t understand them well at all and find myself going back to fire frequently. I have not had the focus with the other elements like I have on fire.

I think the old weapon unlock system excelled in this area. On my thief I learned what the skills did as I unlocked them. However they unlocked a bit too fast if I was not paying attention. Perhaps return the old unlock system and slow down the progress of unlocking them.

I do think this may annoy some veteran players I am not sure how to satisfy them. Perhaps once you have unlocked a weapon for a profession on the account it is unlocked for the entire account for that profession.

Frequency of events
I think the events in the begening areas need to be increased a tad. This is to keep refine the pacing in the starting areas.

Bundles and changes to starter areas
I understand why it was done. You don’t want to front-load a player who is just learning their skills. However now some of them are quite silly or feel toyish. Entertaining a cow, fumbling with a toolbox. Also some interesting ones were outright removed. Protogy and Golem chess in Metrica province. I feel that the cows and repairing golems should actually be collector heart events. And the events that were removed should be re-added elsewhere. Please add the flavor back to the beginning areas.

I totally agree about the weapons.
The old system was good, as it was a per weapon basis, but it was a little too quick.

On the hints…I would’ve liked to see hints when I started the the game. And I think they will be quite effective, at least for the players that read them.

And it’s ashame about the hearts that were removed.
I do hope, like for golem chess, they will be re-added somewhere.

I do not like entertaining the cows T_T…but whatever, if players need simplicity in the early levels, then so be it.

Tryxtr.6295:

One fundamental problem with this that I have is that according to Anet they surveyed people that stopped playing the game and based their changes on the leveling system based on their answers. But did they survey the players that are actually still playing the game? Don’t our opinions count for something?

If I made a movie, showed it to 500 people, and 20 of them walked out angry, I wouldn’t change the movie to suit them, because 480 people seemed to enjoy it. It’s not a perfect comparison but you get the point.

Why didn’t they do a CDI on the leveling experience?
Why isn’t there an in-game survey system that periodically asks me questions about in-game features? Wouldn’t that be super helpful if you’re interested in what your player-base thinks? (which, admittedly, Anet definitely seems to).

These forums are full of amazing ideas, but it’s no secret that we’re only a small part of the GW2 population. An in-game survey system would reach 100% of your current player-base and would provide an amazingly accurate idea of what your players want. And I know that personally I wouldn’t mind answering a few questions here and there in order to make the game better. There would also be a great opportunity to link directly to the CDI’s on these forums from inside the game. Collaboration is a great thing, but I feel like 80% of the player-base is upset with the new changes and that is not good.

You’re assuming a 96% retention rate with those numbers. I haven’t seen the metrics and not being a game designer, I don’t know what retention rate is considered superior. However, my guess is it’s no where near that high. It may even be sub 50%. Either way, what I would surmise is more people buy and quit the game than stay and play it and that is expected. But, it seems the current percentage simply isn’t high enough for the company’s standards. We’re falling into the trap of thinking that “we stayed so obviously everything is fine,” but do we know what percentage of activated accounts we are?

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

Taygus.4571:

anzenketh.3759:

I have decided based upon my impression of this thread and recent comments from Chris that changes are closer to their actual design. I do not know everything in relation to the NPE as I have veteran goggles on. However I am in a unique position to have a wife that recently picked up the game.

Due to this I will revise my feedback I posted in in the following thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Learning-Curve/first#post4389552

Revamped Hints

These are extremely useful. However I am unsure about their effectiveness. Your testing should have proved if it is true or not.

Gating of Weapon skills

I understand why this was done to reward the player. I think that gated systems are not vary rewarding they always feel restrictive. Nor do I find it educational. I do not feel that it teaches me the profession. I was leveling up a sentimentalist from level 1 in the new system I understand the mechanics of fire well. The reason behind this was that I was required to go a entire level focusing on that single skill.

However for the remaining elements of the elements I don’t understand them well at all and find myself going back to fire frequently. I have not had the focus with the other elements like I have on fire.

I think the old weapon unlock system excelled in this area. On my thief I learned what the skills did as I unlocked them. However they unlocked a bit too fast if I was not paying attention. Perhaps return the old unlock system and slow down the progress of unlocking them.

I do think this may annoy some veteran players I am not sure how to satisfy them. Perhaps once you have unlocked a weapon for a profession on the account it is unlocked for the entire account for that profession.

Frequency of events
I think the events in the begening areas need to be increased a tad. This is to keep refine the pacing in the starting areas.

Bundles and changes to starter areas
I understand why it was done. You don’t want to front-load a player who is just learning their skills. However now some of them are quite silly or feel toyish. Entertaining a cow, fumbling with a toolbox. Also some interesting ones were outright removed. Protogy and Golem chess in Metrica province. I feel that the cows and repairing golems should actually be collector heart events. And the events that were removed should be re-added elsewhere. Please add the flavor back to the beginning areas.

I totally agree about the weapons.
The old system was good, as it was a per weapon basis, but it was a little too quick.

On the hints…I would’ve liked to see hints when I started the the game. And I think they will be quite effective, at least for the players that read them.

And it’s ashame about the hearts that were removed.
I do hope, like for golem chess, they will be re-added somewhere.

I do not like entertaining the cows T_T…but whatever, if players need simplicity in the early levels, then so be it.

Yes, I want to echo this sentiment. The rate was probably a little too fast, but unlocking through use was a superior system for a few different reasons.

First, learning a skill required actually using the weapon, which makes more sense thematically.

Second, it meant that you were always aware of gaining a new weapon skill, which meant that you were more likely to read about it, learn it, and use it. In essence, it was a better form of tutorial.

Third, it was a more satisfying way to progress through the early levels – see which skills you lacked, find a weapon of that type, and begin experimenting with it.

felessan.9587:

Tryxtr.6295:

One fundamental problem with this that I have is that according to Anet they surveyed people that stopped playing the game and based their changes on the leveling system based on their answers. But did they survey the players that are actually still playing the game? Don’t our opinions count for something?

If I made a movie, showed it to 500 people, and 20 of them walked out angry, I wouldn’t change the movie to suit them, because 480 people seemed to enjoy it. It’s not a perfect comparison but you get the point.

Why didn’t they do a CDI on the leveling experience?
Why isn’t there an in-game survey system that periodically asks me questions about in-game features? Wouldn’t that be super helpful if you’re interested in what your player-base thinks? (which, admittedly, Anet definitely seems to).

These forums are full of amazing ideas, but it’s no secret that we’re only a small part of the GW2 population. An in-game survey system would reach 100% of your current player-base and would provide an amazingly accurate idea of what your players want. And I know that personally I wouldn’t mind answering a few questions here and there in order to make the game better. There would also be a great opportunity to link directly to the CDI’s on these forums from inside the game. Collaboration is a great thing, but I feel like 80% of the player-base is upset with the new changes and that is not good.

You’re assuming a 96% retention rate with those numbers. I haven’t seen the metrics and not being a game designer, I don’t know what retention rate is considered superior. However, my guess is it’s no where near that high. It may even be sub 50%. Either way, what I would surmise is more people buy and quit the game than stay and play it and that is expected. But, it seems the current percentage simply isn’t high enough for the company’s standards. We’re falling into the trap of thinking that “we stayed so obviously everything is fine,” but do we know what percentage of activated accounts we are?

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

But he talking about the “infant mortality” end of the failure curve. Players who don’t return after X hours of play on their 1st character. The longer someones plays, the more likely they will get tired of it and leave, if only for a while.

felessan.9587:

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

ANet does. But, that’s it. People have been trying to estimate current user numbers for ages, and we just don’t have any real way to measure that.

Vayne.8563:

HHR LostProphet.4801:

amimeta.4960:

…

It would be nice to know if a one-time tutorial, which deals with all the aspects of the gameplay (like dodging, downstate, healing skills, utility skills, elite skills, weaponswap, etc.), would have the same effect for you, rather than the current implementation.
While I agree that the level-up rewards shift the focus to the leveling, I’m still highly concerned about the changes.

The problem with tutorials is that many players skip them…because they’re tutorials. Playing the game will make more of an impression than a tutorial to many people. People are anxious to get through the tutorial to get to the game.

It may well work better for some people but I’m not convinced it would work better for the bulk of the population. And I know from experience, sometimes, some people who need tutorials the most are most likely to skip them.

many times tutorials arent skippable the first time.
Also, how annoying people find it have a lot to do with how well designed they are.
presearing was essentially a tutorial, but it was entertaining

shing jea was a tutorial, but it was entertaining

many games have very good opening levels that act as tutoral AND game content. While at this point i would just call it a day, and move on, even though the beginning of the game is kind of lackluster now, i can’t lie and say they would not be better off creating an actual interesting mini zone for tutorials, which played like an actual game with real, logical pacing.

In fact level gating will often be bad pacing in terms of teaching. Leveling is not representitive of a players skill or understanding, it just represents time, and everyone learns at different paces.

to be honest, the real reason they probably locked skills is for pacing, and rationing out abilities, to make people feel “rewarded” for leveling.

theres a common teaching idiom about how unlikely it is to learn through osmosis, and thats essentially what level gating skills/traits is.

felessan.9587:

Tryxtr.6295:

One fundamental problem with this that I have is that according to Anet they surveyed people that stopped playing the game and based their changes on the leveling system based on their answers. But did they survey the players that are actually still playing the game? Don’t our opinions count for something?

If I made a movie, showed it to 500 people, and 20 of them walked out angry, I wouldn’t change the movie to suit them, because 480 people seemed to enjoy it. It’s not a perfect comparison but you get the point.

Why didn’t they do a CDI on the leveling experience?
Why isn’t there an in-game survey system that periodically asks me questions about in-game features? Wouldn’t that be super helpful if you’re interested in what your player-base thinks? (which, admittedly, Anet definitely seems to).

These forums are full of amazing ideas, but it’s no secret that we’re only a small part of the GW2 population. An in-game survey system would reach 100% of your current player-base and would provide an amazingly accurate idea of what your players want. And I know that personally I wouldn’t mind answering a few questions here and there in order to make the game better. There would also be a great opportunity to link directly to the CDI’s on these forums from inside the game. Collaboration is a great thing, but I feel like 80% of the player-base is upset with the new changes and that is not good.

You’re assuming a 96% retention rate with those numbers. I haven’t seen the metrics and not being a game designer, I don’t know what retention rate is considered superior. However, my guess is it’s no where near that high. It may even be sub 50%. Either way, what I would surmise is more people buy and quit the game than stay and play it and that is expected. But, it seems the current percentage simply isn’t high enough for the company’s standards. We’re falling into the trap of thinking that “we stayed so obviously everything is fine,” but do we know what percentage of activated accounts we are?

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

changing your game substantially for the people who buy and never play is a waste of time. It very rarely has a lot to do with the actual game.
Now if you ask these people they will give you reasons, because you asked them, but the reality is they just didnt have the time energy/interest.

the reality is that the game didnt draw them in, within the first X minutes, and very little of that is based on something the game should actually change. (without being a detriment to the games actual design)

phys.7689:

In fact level gating will often be bad pacing in terms of teaching. Leveling is not representitive of a players skill or understanding, it just represents time, and everyone learns at different paces.

BOOM. We have a winner my friends!

And time spent playing for the unlocks is exactly what they decided to keep constant in this update. It was clearly too fast for some and is far too slow for others.

Content delivery mechanisms are what need to be improved so that players fully experience the game but are not blocked off from it because of an arbitrary representation of experience based upon time from an admittedly-failed leveling scheme.

I hope they resolve the issues soon, I’m delaying working on a new character until the Personal Story ordering issues are resolved.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
It would be great to only have the beginning of Personal Story told in chapters for the new players. But revert Personal Story to its previous iteration after the Battle of Claw Island, that would solve a lot of the out of order issues imo.

narwhalsbend.7059:

PLEASE FIX THE PERSONAL STORY

Why remove the “Greatest Fear” storyline?
Why mix up the order when it makes no sense?

Also, please change traits back to the way they were.

I’m fine with the traits, just not ok with the personal story order. I wonder if them releasing the personal story in chapters would make it easy for them to make the story repeatable. If so, that would be great to be able to do the personal story several times. What isn’t so great is the story being out of order.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

I am up to date with the conversation. We are discussing your thoughts internally and continuing to work on the story steps. Once I have some more new I will update the thread.

Meanwhile I just want to communicate with certainty that NPE was not implemented in order to increase monetization from the BLT. It was designed for brand new players to the game. And it is for that reason that we are working with you to understand how to better refine the system.

Chris

Awesome, thank you Chris

Tachenon.5270:

Vayne.8563:

Aliven.4056:

@Vayne
That is problem for that players. If you skip tutorial in a game you dont know how to play this is only your fault. The devs give you tools, and if you dont want to use them then be ready for consequesnces.

Also there is not a single reason to NOT make a tutorial and a tutorial section of the game should be THE best part of the game.

Gating things is not the answer. Teaching how to use tools you gain is a way. Giving more solution for the problems is the way. Not striping us from the tools.

Actually it’s a problem for the devs. If a player skips the tutorial and leaves the game, it doesn’t help the game. Sure it’s his fault, but it’s Anet’s problem. That’s the problem in a nutshell. More people need to stay after starting.

In that case anet should try adding more things early on to get the players engaged, rather than pushing things back. What sort of things? Maybe some sort of ongoing personal story, one without a lot of aggravating level gaps, with interesting, recurring characters doing interesting things all involving the player’s character personally.

I always find tutorials boring and skip them if I can. Having the replay them on a new character is even worse. Unfortunately, the NPE has made the entire early and mid game a tutorial.

Gaile Gray.6029:

The devs have been reviewing your feedback on the New Player Experience. While some bug fixes have already been made, the team will be making other updates in the future to address:

• Plot holes and story inconsistencies that may have been introduced with story realignment
• Replacing the missing profession mechanics UI for the Ranger and Mesmer professions
• Investigating issues that prevent players from retaining some skills (heal, utility, and elite) that they had previously unlocked
• Addressing an issue with bundles that prematurely unlocked utility and elite skills

Other aspects of the NPE are being examined, and your constructive feedback is welcome and appreciated.

I’m happy to see a red post showing interest in fixing the plot holes. I really liked the personal story before all of the changes, and I feel like after the removal of the “Worst Fear” plot step in particular (mentioned here – https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/My-Greatest-Fear-Plotline/first) opens a lot of holes in the later parts of the story (particularly in Orr). A lot of NPCs discuss things related to the events of those story missions (that are now non-existent), and this is likely to confuse players that didn’t get to experience those missions before they were removed.

I also thought that the overall tone of your player overcoming something personally limiting was very important to connecting the player to the story through the character. Mechanically, a story feels much more compelling if it touches on something that you as a player feels, and by giving the player the choice of what they “fear the most” you get to make that story a bit more personal.

Again, I want to voice that I’m glad that the Devs are looking into the holes opened up by the changes, and I want to help make sure this very important one doesn’t go without notice.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

felessan.9587:

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

ANet does. But, that’s it. People have been trying to estimate current user numbers for ages, and we just don’t have any real way to measure that.

Yes, I should have said: “Anyone outside of Anet.” I’m really curious to see what healthy retention rates are considered to be.

Anet seems to think that people were overwhelmed by too many options when they first logged in, so they reigned them in. Hopefully the NPE does what they hope it will.

felessan.9587:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

felessan.9587:

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

ANet does. But, that’s it. People have been trying to estimate current user numbers for ages, and we just don’t have any real way to measure that.

Yes, I should have said: “Anyone outside of Anet.” I’m really curious to see what healthy retention rates are considered to be.

Anet seems to think that people were overwhelmed by too many options when they first logged in, so they reigned them in. Hopefully the NPE does what they hope it will.

We know with WoW that only 30% of people who try it ever get past level 10, or at least that was the case then the article was written. I’d have thought it would be higher.

phys.7689:

many times tutorials arent skippable the first time.
Also, how annoying people find it have a lot to do with how well designed they are.
presearing was essentially a tutorial, but it was entertaining

shing jea was a tutorial, but it was entertaining

many games have very good opening levels that act as tutoral AND game content. While at this point i would just call it a day, and move on, even though the beginning of the game is kind of lackluster now, i can’t lie and say they would not be better off creating an actual interesting mini zone for tutorials, which played like an actual game with real, logical pacing.

In fact level gating will often be bad pacing in terms of teaching. Leveling is not representitive of a players skill or understanding, it just represents time, and everyone learns at different paces.

to be honest, the real reason they probably locked skills is for pacing, and rationing out abilities, to make people feel “rewarded” for leveling.

theres a common teaching idiom about how unlikely it is to learn through osmosis, and thats essentially what level gating skills/traits is.

Yea., have really fond memories of presearing…for a while, most of us newbies thought that place was the entire game, until you moved – full of surprise and expectation – to a brand new world, which was literally massive in comparison. Quite the blast of an NPE.

Charrbeque.8729:

Any player that just wants to pick whatever weapon is popular for their profession and just spam 1 all day doesn’t belong playing GW, in my opinion.

I have to say as a new player of about 41 days in, that my choice of weapons isn’t based on meta or what is “popular”, I have a different approach to it all irrespective of what might be available to class X, I choose what looks right and appropriate for class X to be welding in the first place;

Example; Elementalist → Daggers? you have to be yanking my chain, they belong on an Assassin or in our case Thief, like wise for any other odd looking weapon that doesn’t look like it should be there, the only time an Elemantalist should be welding a sharp object used for slicing and dicing is when it is eating dinner.

Then and only then when I am comfortable with how class ‘X’ welds a weapon will I even take a look at the skills, and generally I go from there.

This has extended problem when talking about a Guardian, as I’d like to use a sword and shield from time to time, —however-- the Guardian carries her sword around like a holstered pistol, is should be on her back under the shield so I’ve got with 2 handed sword instead, but then I’m only just exploring Guardians still really have no idea what they are supposed to do exactly, other than yell “PAIN FOR PAIN!”.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

MVP.7961:

Gaile Gray.6029:

The devs have been reviewing your feedback on the New Player Experience. While some bug fixes have already been made, the team will be making other updates in the future to address:

• Plot holes and story inconsistencies that may have been introduced with story realignment

Please revert this horrible change. The story was fine as it is and there was no need for it. I stopped playing my story because of this.

If this change was done because of some players complaining (which I hope it is not and this is just a bug or something…) this will be ridiculous and it show how you have no respect for your own work. You don’t go back and change what it is already in the lore just because of some complaint.

This comment is HUGE double-edged sword after all the changes they’ve reverted from last week.

You say they have no respect for their work, which is why they changed the story missions. You say they shouldn’t listen to others just because they don’t like the story.

However, what does that say about them taking player input about all the changes they made with the NPE? A lot of players didn’t like the changes, and they even reverted some of them (like the levels that utility skills unlocked at). Should they stick to their guns, have respect for their work, and put the Elite unlock back up to level 40?

Listen, there’s a very delicate line to walk here, and you can’t go around plying that kind of mentality. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don’t. But either way, they should be listening to the player base. I don’t like the story changes either, but if they were never changed to begin with, we’d still have the majority voice being “the story sucks, god I hate it!” I’d rather see a dozen threads about wanting it fixed than a dozen threads about how kittenty the storyline is.

I’m only talking about the story not the other changes.

You will see many saying “the story sucks, god I hate it!” but that doesn’t mean you go and take a chunk from what it is already established in the lore just because of this.

They have to listen to the players if there is something that needs to be addressed but not when they complain just for the sake of complaining.

Vayne.8563:

felessan.9587:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

felessan.9587:

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

ANet does. But, that’s it. People have been trying to estimate current user numbers for ages, and we just don’t have any real way to measure that.

Yes, I should have said: “Anyone outside of Anet.” I’m really curious to see what healthy retention rates are considered to be.

Anet seems to think that people were overwhelmed by too many options when they first logged in, so they reigned them in. Hopefully the NPE does what they hope it will.

We know with WoW that only 30% of people who try it ever get past level 10, or at least that was the case then the article was written. I’d have thought it would be higher.

And that was in its absolute prime.

GW2 retention for new players probably hovers at a similar statistic per unit of time spent only on the basis that the game is pay once and done. If you’re playing the game, ANet has already made its expected income from you. So with this type of payment model, the rates here may even be artificially high since people might be more inclined to stay for a product they’ve already paid for.

That said, the retention appears low. Frankly, the only time I’ve seen starter/early maps have sufficient numbers is after the scrap rate from boxes increase and people are farming keys, or new early content is released and people are trying it all out.